<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (6) TMI 1100 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793719</link>
    <description>Reimbursement of central sales tax under a State incentive scheme was treated as outside the transaction value for excise valuation because it was not sales tax actually payable or paid by the buyer. The Tribunal applied its consistent view that such reimbursement cannot be added under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the demand was held unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 08:08:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1100 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793719</link>
      <description>Reimbursement of central sales tax under a State incentive scheme was treated as outside the transaction value for excise valuation because it was not sales tax actually payable or paid by the buyer. The Tribunal applied its consistent view that such reimbursement cannot be added under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the demand was held unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>